monkey music

This link will only be active for a few weeks, I think. But here’s the headline:

Monkeys prefer metal to Mozart

The article says a recent study shows that monkey’s somehow found heavy metal music relaxing. The researchers wrote music specifically for monkeys, imitating the sounds they make in their calls and cries. The conclusion?

The results suggests music is species-specific. It may be used to communicate an emotional state and try to induce that same emotional state in the listener, Snowdon said.

I’m just wanting to know if they played ‘Hey, Hey, it’s the Monkees’ for them?


fundamentalism applied to conduct

In the comments on “fundamentalism defined”, a certain ambiguity in the FBFI definition was noted at this point:

3. Endeavors to practice Biblical conduct in all areas of his life.

A question could be raised here: “So exactly how does this aspect of the definition differentiate you fundamentalists from conservative evangelicals? Don’t they believe in practicing Biblical conduct in all areas of life also?”

In my reply, I noted that other phrases of the definition might more clearly differentiate a fundamentalist from a conservative evangelical. I am willing to concede that in many ways, conservative evangelicals agree with fundamentalism in terms of “Biblical conduct in all areas of life.”

I will also concede that the statement as it stands is pretty open-ended. Everyone thinks that the way they apply the Bible to their life is the ‘Biblical’ way.

However, let’s be really clear… Fundamentalists are not vague and uncertain about what they believe to be biblical conduct.

[Read more…]

from the wayback machine

I had someone request the audio from some messages I preached four years ago on the subject of Christian music. They are now posted on our church site, I thought I would make the links available here also.

First, an article on our church site that introduces our music philosophy.

[Read more…]

everybody sing!

Back in May, Scott Aniol posted Leading Music at the Conference on the Church for God’s Glory on his site, Religious Affections.

In the article, he commented on the music at the Together for the Gospel conference he had attended earlier in the year. Among other things he said this:

Although every hymn choice for that conference was in and of itself conservative, and although the accompaniment was simple in theory, a completely different underlying philosophy bled through. The leader of the singing, who led from the piano, was a master at emotional manipulation stimulation. How he accompanied the hymns moved and swayed the audience in certain emotional directions. He constantly shouted out unintelligible exclamations that further roused the audience. And the audience did respond. Hands waving in the air, enthusiastic shouting, vigorous singing, and even some jumping around.

I would recommend you read Scott’s entire article. There is some discussion following, but the article is the main thing. Now, I don’t have the time, the $$$, nor the interest to attend such conferences. I didn’t really have a full picture of what Scott was describing, but I had an idea what it was like. Now you can get a sense of exactly what Scott is describing…

[Read more…]

profanity and logs

I wrote recently about problems with the current Desiring God conference and the silence of FINOs with respect to it. As an update, you should check out another post by Steve Camp, Steve Camp’s outrage over Mark Driscoll. The culpability of Piper et al with respect to the blasphemous Driscoll grows with each passing day. No rebuke from anyone? Will the Piper groupies, any of them, turn in their Fan Club badges?

I must say, however, to Steve Camp, when we are speaking of profaning the holy, how is Driscoll’s language any worse than your music? The sound of the bar and the disco isn’t the sound of the choirs of heaven, is it?

I agree with everything Steve has written in these posts about profane speech. But profanity (making things common) occurs in more ways than just by speech. The church culture that ultimately produced a Mark Driscoll is one that has been profaning holy things for a long time.

May we all repent of our sins and plead our unworthiness before our Holy Saviour.


who is your God?

To address this question today, I’d like to link to two quite widely divergent internet resources. One is a local paper from the interior of BC and the other is my online friend, Scott Aniol.

First, consider this lifestyles article from the, Keepers of the sacred. The article discusses the decline in Canadian church attendance, among other things. The article comes to no real conclusion, certainly to no conclusion satisfying to me, but it does contain a telling observation concerning the focus of affection in Canadian hearts:

[Read more…]

choosing music in the Spirit

I’d like to commend an excellent post to you (as well as direct more attention to my missionary colleague and friend who wrote it).

Scott Dean serves in Mongolia and writes a blog about it. I am sure you might find things of interest to pray about if you subscribe to the feed. Scott also often inserts bits of things the Lord is teaching him. Today, Scott gave us an excellent post on how to choose good music …

[Read more…]

beyond outrage . . . a call for a theology of culture

Two recent posts are offered on the approach fundamentalism needs to be taking in the 21st century. The first is outrage is easy, the second is outrage is easy . . . or is it?

My arguments in outrage is easy . . . or is it? fall along what I consider to be traditional fundamentalist argumentation in the last half of the 20th century, i.e., an opposition to compromised associations. I think the argumentation is valid, yet the argumentation fails if the issues over which I object are inconsequential.

Let me try to illustrate [I know that I am often guilty of obtuse language]: Person A engages in practices/preaching that the Fundamentalist shuns and proclaims wrong. Person B does not engage in those practices/preaching but is willing to overlook these matters and joins with Person A in cooperative religious efforts. The Fundamentalist, according to my argumentation, shuns Person B because his association with Person A constitute a violation of clear commands of Scripture to ‘touch not the unclean thing’.

If the practices/preaching of Person A are not, in fact, wrong, then the Fundamentalist is wrong in shunning either one.

Regardless of any other factors, this is the crux of argument against compromised associations. The shunned preaching or practices must be sufficiently antagonistic to the cause of Christ to warrant the shunning [to whatever degree the shunning takes place].

I say ‘sufficiently’ because we are all fallible men and we tend to want to give others the benefit of the doubt to some extent – or at least, we ought to. I say ‘to whatever degree’ because there are what some call ‘degrees’ of separation. It is not my purpose to agonize over such degrees here. I am simply looking at the essential argument as I made it in the earlier post.

It seems to me that the issues we most argue about today in the shunning/separation/fellowship debates is largely culturally focused. Whether it be the culture of music, motion pictures, dress, the use of alcohol, or any other issue you care to name, the argumentation is largely focused on culture. Some say the problem is simply a matter of taste. In the area of music, the ‘good old hymns’ of broad fundamentalism are nothing more than the popular music of the late 19th to early 20th century. Some might add that culture is not theological, no doctrines are at stake, your criticism is nothing but Pharisaism, etc.

In this article, I am going to contend that the challenge to orthodoxy we face today is a much more subtle attack on orthodoxy than we have faced heretofore.

[Read more…]

a little something for Ryan Martin, et al

Free Bach!

Read all about it here.

Downloads are here.

Don Johnson
Jer 33.3